MrSparkle wrote:Infinity2152 wrote:I can't imagine any team has had more starters out for injuries than the Bulls during AK's time either. If I'm mistaken, please correct me. The Bulls have literally been starting two-three bench players every night for the last few years, between Zach, Ball, and Pat's injuries. A team built thru strength in numbers can't afford that as easily as a team with two top tier stars as long as the stars are healthy. Add in the fact that the one out the longest is the QB of the offense and defense and maybe the only high BBall IQ player on the team, exacerbates the problem. I bet the metrics when all are healthy are entirely different. Injuries happen, but we've had multiple guys out damn near entire seasons.
So yeah, our team minus 2-3 starters is not as good as most teams with their starting lineups primarily intact. Is that surprising?
The Lonzo injury was as bad/unfortunate as it gets, and our injury rates that first season were ridiculous (Pat/Coby/Caruso/DJJ). But overall, besides Lonzo, I'd say the Bulls have been on par with the average NBA team that sees a lot of ups and downs with health.
Clippers? They keep staying over 500, with tons of vet min guys playing heavy minutes. Kawhi and George during his time there.
I can't remember the last time Middleton made it through a season. He was a key part of the Bucks' chip.
Celtics lost Porzingis most the year and won a ring.
Grizzlies have been making do with or without Ja (wisely tanking when he was entirely out).
Hawks have had a deluge of injuries to their core (Hunter, Okongwu, etc.). Magic keep winning, with Franz/Paolo nursing serious injuries. Cavs had a rough stretch last year- now they're healthy and loaded.
My point is, it was an excuse until it wasn't an excuse. Sorry, but you don't get to say for 4 years straight that injuries are the reason you can't make it to .500. At that point, you just suck, and you're not doing anything smart to get out the treadmill.
You can't just say aside from Lonzo though. Without looking up the stats, I can pretty much guarantee Bull's not having Lonzo vs Clippers not having George, or Celtics not having Porzingas, Bucks not having Middleton, the Bull's net rating, defensive rating, offensive rating are far more impacted than when those guys were out. I'm sure he has the highest +/-, almost any positive advanced metrics as far as team impact.
There are 30 teams in the league. We don't have a top 15 player. Missing the most impactful player. How is being a mid-team bad? Where could you realistically expect to be? There are no moves he could have made to make us a contender with Lonzo out. Trading zach, Debo, or Vuc, we're still a mid-team at best. Just a different mid-team.
If we made it to .500 two of those seasons, then what?
They were 46-36 2021-2022 season, so definitely not 4 years straight.
40-42 2022-2023 no Ball, so one win away from being .500.
39-43 2023-2024 missing Lavine and Ball plus Pat half the season, two wins from being .500.
If Pat Will had given us anywhere near the impact you'd hope from a recent #4 pick, are those teams better than .500 teams even without Ball? Since they missed by 1 and 2 games?
2020 draft, we could have traded down and still drafted Haliburton, Maxey, Desmond Bane, Deni Avidja, or Devin Vassell. That miss has hurt us more the past 3-4 years than any inactivity in the trade market.
